Question

In relation to State responsibility, the Permanent Court of International Justice has observed that: ‘ It is a principle of international law and even a greater conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation’, in which of the following case?

• A. Chorzow Factory Case.
• B. Home Missionary Society Case
• C. Corfu Channel Case
• D. Genocide Convention Case
• A. Corfu Channel Case
• B. Trial Smelter Arbitration
• C. International Commission on the River Oder Case
• D. Case Concerning auditing of accounts between Netherlands and France.
• A. Island of Palmas Case
• B. Nuclear Tests Case
• C. Corfu Channel Case
• D. None of the above.
• A. 191
• B. 192
• C. 193
• D. 194
• A. South West Africa Case
• B. South West Africa Case
• C. Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case
• D. North Sea Continental Shelf Case
• A. Basel Convention, 1989
• B. Principle 21 of Rio Declaration
• C. Kyoto Protocol, 1997
• D. Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration
• A. On the request of Security Council Only
• B. On the request of General Assembly only
• C. On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both.
• D. On the request of Economic and Social Council if authorised by the Security Council.
• A. Positivist
• B. Historical
• C. Sociological
• D. Naturalist
• A. Principle 16 of Rio Declaration
• B. International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990
• C. Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents 1992.
• D. All of the above.
• A. It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries.
• B. It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries.
• C. Its judgements have no binding force.
• D. Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The Correct Option is (A):Chorzow Factory Case.

Answer 2

The quotation describes a foundational principle of state responsibility, that any breach of an international obligation carries a duty to make reparation, and the task is to match it to the case in which the Permanent Court of International Justice articulated it.

1. Option (A) Chorzow Factory Case: In the Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) judgment of 1928, the Permanent Court of International Justice held precisely this, that it is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form. The wording of the quoted passage tracks this judgment almost verbatim.
2. Option (B) Home Missionary Society Case: This was a claims-arbitration matter (United States v. Great Britain, 1920) concerning liability for losses arising from a local uprising in Sierra Leone connected to a hut tax. It deals with attribution and due diligence rather than laying down the general reparation principle quoted here.
3. Option (C) Corfu Channel Case: Decided by the ICJ in 1949, this case concerned Albania's responsibility for mines in its territorial waters that damaged British warships. It is associated with the duty not to allow one's territory to be used to the detriment of other states, not with the reparation formula quoted in the passage.
4. Option (D) Genocide Convention Case: This line of ICJ jurisprudence concerns state responsibility for genocide under the 1948 Convention and is a later body of case law; it did not originate the classical statement on reparation for breach of an engagement.

Only the Chorzow Factory judgment matches the quoted language and the specific point about reparation flowing automatically from a breach.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (A): Chorzow Factory Case.

Answer 3

The Correct Option is (C):International Commission on the River Oder Case

Answer 4

The passage's bracket "[1]" sits right before a quotation about the community of interest in a navigable river giving rise to perfect equality of all riparian states, and the question asks which case that quotation belongs to.

1. Option (A) Corfu Channel Case: This 1949 ICJ decision concerns responsibility for mines in territorial straits and innocent passage through international straits, not the doctrine of shared rights among states bordering the same river.
2. Option (B) Trial Smelter Arbitration: The Trail Smelter arbitration between the United States and Canada dealt with transboundary air pollution from a smelter and established the no-harm principle for cross-border environmental damage, a different context from riparian rights on a shared waterway.
3. Option (C) International Commission on the River Oder Case: In this 1929 judgment, the Permanent Court of International Justice held that the community of interest in a navigable international river creates a common legal right for all riparian states, marked by their perfect equality in using the whole navigable course and the exclusion of any preferential privilege for one riparian state over another. This is exactly the language reproduced in the passage.
4. Option (D) Case Concerning auditing of accounts between Netherlands and France: This is an accounts and financial settlement matter between two states and has nothing to do with riparian rights over an international river.

The quoted passage on riparian equality and community of interest is drawn directly from the River Oder judgment.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (C): International Commission on the River Oder Case.

Answer 5

The Correct Option is (A): Island of Palmas Case

Answer 6

The bracketed "[2]" precedes the statement that territorial sovereignty incorporated an obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other states, a formulation tied to a specific, well-known arbitral award on sovereignty.

1. Option (A) Island of Palmas Case: In this 1928 arbitration between the United States and the Netherlands, Judge Max Huber described territorial sovereignty as carrying with it the corollary duty to protect within one's territory the rights of other states, particularly their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and war. This is precisely the proposition reproduced in the passage.
2. Option (B) Nuclear Tests Case: This 1974 ICJ case concerned France's atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific and the legal effect of unilateral declarations, not the content of territorial sovereignty.
3. Option (C) Corfu Channel Case: While this case does touch on a state's duty not to allow its territory to be used against the rights of other states, that particular obligation is the one that follows this quoted principle in the passage, it is not the source of the sovereignty-and-protection formulation itself.
4. Option (D) None of the above: Incorrect since the Island of Palmas award is the recognised source of this exact proposition.

The description of sovereignty as entailing a duty to protect the rights of other states within one's own territory is squarely the Island of Palmas holding.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (A): Island of Palmas Case.

Answer 7

The Correct Option is (D):194

Answer 8

The passage quotes a treaty obligation requiring states to prevent pollution damage to other states and their environment, sourced to a specific article of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, and the four options are simply nearby article numbers.

1. Option (A) 191: Article 191 of UNCLOS deals with requesting expert advisory opinions before the Seabed Disputes Chamber, an unrelated procedural provision.
2. Option (B) 192: Article 192 states the general obligation that states have a duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. It is closely related in subject matter but is a broad, general statement rather than the specific pollution-prevention duty quoted in the passage.
3. Option (C) 193: Article 193 recognises the sovereign right of states to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies, in accordance with their duty to protect the marine environment, again a related but distinct provision.
4. Option (D) 194: Article 194(2) of UNCLOS specifically provides that states shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are conducted so as not to cause damage by pollution to other states and their environment. This is an exact match with the quoted text in the passage.

The quoted sentence tracks the wording of Article 194(2) precisely, not the neighbouring articles.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (D): 194.

Answer 9

The Correct Option is (C):Kyoto Protocol, 1997

Answer 10

The question turns on a specific nuance in the law of customary international law: not general custom formed by widespread state practice, but local or bilateral custom formed between just two states following a practice repeatedly over a long period. Each option needs to be tested against this specific holding.

1. Option (A) South West Africa Case: This case, brought by Ethiopia and Liberia against South Africa concerning the mandate over South West Africa, was decided principally on questions of standing and interpretation of the mandate instrument, not on how a bilateral practice between two states can ripen into custom.
2. Option (B) South West Africa Case (listed again): Same case as above; it does not concern the formation of a local custom between two states.
3. Option (C) Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case: In this 1960 judgment, the ICJ accepted Portugal's claim to a right of passage over Indian territory between its enclaves, holding that where two states have, over a long period, uniformly and consistently followed a particular practice accepted by both as governing their relations, that practice can crystallise into a binding local (bilateral) customary rule, even though it applies to only those two states rather than the international community generally. This is exactly the proposition in the question.
4. Option (D) North Sea Continental Shelf Case: This 1969 judgment is the leading authority on general customary international law, requiring widespread and representative state practice across the international community, together with opinio juris, for a rule to bind states generally. It is not about a rule arising from just two states' repeated practice with each other, so it does not match the specific point the question is asking about.

The recognition that repeated practice between two particular states can itself generate a binding local customary rule is the distinctive holding of the Right of Passage case.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (C): Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case.

Answer 11

The Correct Option is (D):Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration

Answer 12

The Latin maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas means use your own property so as not to injure that of another, and in international environmental law this is the root of the rule that a state must not use its territory in ways that damage other states. The task is to trace this doctrine to its correct treaty or declaration source.

1. Option (A) Basel Convention, 1989: The Basel Convention regulates the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous wastes through a notification and consent procedure. It operationalises environmental protection in a specific sphere but is not the source of the general sic utere tuo doctrine.
2. Option (B) Principle 21 of Rio Declaration: The Rio Declaration, 1992 does restate the sovereignty-responsibility balance, but it does so in Principle 2, not Principle 21. Mislabeling the numbering means this option does not correctly identify the doctrine's source.
3. Option (C) Kyoto Protocol, 1997: The Kyoto Protocol sets binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for developed states. It implements climate obligations but is not where the sic utere tuo maxim was first articulated in the environmental law context.
4. Option (D) Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration: The Stockholm Declaration, 1972 is the original source. Principle 21 provides that states have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources but also the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond national jurisdiction, this is the sic utere tuo doctrine in treaty language. Principle 22 supplements it by calling on states to cooperate in developing further international law on liability and compensation for such damage.

The doctrine is textually rooted in the Stockholm Declaration's twin principles on sovereign responsibility and liability, not in the Basel Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, or a mislabeled Rio provision.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (D): Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration.

Answer 13

The Correct Option is (C):On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both.

Answer 14

Advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is governed by Article 96 of the UN Charter, which distinguishes between organs that can request an opinion directly and organs that need authorisation first. The four options need to be checked against that structure.

1. Option (A) On the request of Security Council only: This is too narrow. The Security Council can request advisory opinions under Article 96(1), but it is not the only organ with that direct power.
2. Option (B) On the request of General Assembly only: Equally too narrow in the other direction. The General Assembly has direct power to request advisory opinions under Article 96(1), but so does the Security Council, so limiting it to the Assembly alone is incorrect.
3. Option (C) On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both: Article 96(1) of the UN Charter authorises both the General Assembly and the Security Council to request an advisory opinion from the Court on any legal question, independently of each other. This matches the provision exactly.
4. Option (D) On the request of Economic and Social Council if authorised by the Security Council: This gets the authorising body wrong. Under Article 96(2), other UN organs and specialised agencies, including ECOSOC, may request advisory opinions on legal questions within the scope of their activities, but only if authorised by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

Only the General Assembly and the Security Council enjoy the direct, unconditional power under Article 96(1) to request advisory opinions, and either of them, or both, can do so.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (C): On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both.

Answer 15

The Correct Option is (A):Positivist

Answer 16

The theory of auto-limitation explains why a sovereign state is bound by international law at all, it holds that a state is bound only because it has voluntarily limited its own freedom of action by consenting to be bound. The question asks which school of jurisprudential thought produced this theory.

1. Option (A) Positivist: The positivist school, associated with jurists such as Georg Jellinek, grounds the binding force of international law entirely in the will and consent of states. On this view, a state's sovereignty is not curtailed by any external authority; rather, the state itself chooses, through treaties or accepted custom, to limit its own freedom of action, this self-imposed limitation is precisely the auto-limitation theory.
2. Option (B) Historical: The historical school traces the development of law to the evolving customs, traditions, and consciousness of a community over time, rather than to a state's deliberate act of self-restriction. It does not originate the auto-limitation idea.
3. Option (C) Sociological: Sociological jurisprudence looks at law as a tool serving social interests and functions within society. It focuses on law's social purpose rather than on sovereignty being a product of the state's own will, so it is not the source of this theory.
4. Option (D) Naturalist: Naturalist (natural law) thinking holds that law derives its binding force from universal moral or rational principles that exist independently of state consent. This is essentially the opposite premise from auto-limitation, which roots obligation in the state's own consent rather than in a higher, consent-independent order.

Because auto-limitation locates the source of a state's international obligations in the state's own will and consent, it belongs squarely to the positivist tradition.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (A): Positivist.

Answer 17

The Correct Option is (D):All of the above.

Answer 18

The Polluter Pays Principle holds that the party responsible for causing pollution should bear the cost of remedying or preventing the resulting damage. The question asks which instruments carry this idea into their liability or compensation provisions, and each option needs to be checked in turn.

1. Option (A) Principle 16 of Rio Declaration: Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, 1992 explicitly states that national authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs, with the polluter bearing the cost of pollution, having due regard to the public interest. This is the clearest and most direct textual statement of the principle among the options.
2. Option (B) International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990: This Convention builds a cooperative framework for responding to oil pollution incidents and, together with the liability regime that operates alongside it for oil spills, reflects the underlying premise that those responsible for a pollution incident bear responsibility for its consequences, consistent with polluter-pays logic in the marine pollution context.
3. Option (C) Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, 1992: This UNECE Convention requires operators and states to take preventive and response measures for industrial accidents that could cause transboundary harm, and its liability-oriented approach to accident consequences likewise reflects the principle that costs of pollution and accidents should fall on the party responsible for causing them.
4. Option (D) All of the above: Since each of the three instruments, in its own sphere, general environmental governance, marine oil pollution, and industrial accidents, incorporates the underlying logic that the party causing pollution or accidental harm should bear responsibility for its costs, all three qualify as instruments that give effect to the Polluter Pays Principle.

Rather than being confined to a single treaty, the Polluter Pays Principle recurs across general, marine, and industrial-accident instruments alike.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (D): All of the above.

Answer 19

The Correct Option is (D):Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute.

Answer 20

The question asks what structurally distinguishes the International Court of Justice from a domestic apex court like the Supreme Court of India, and the answer lies in how each court acquires jurisdiction and on whom its judgments bind.

1. Option (A) It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries: This overstates the ICJ's reach. The ICJ does not have automatic jurisdiction over every state; a state must consent to the Court's jurisdiction, whether through a treaty clause, a special agreement, or a declaration under the optional clause of Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute. So describing its jurisdiction as covering all countries is inaccurate.
2. Option (B) It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries (listed again): This repeats the same overstatement as option (A) and fails for the identical reason, consent is the basis of ICJ jurisdiction, not universal compulsory reach.
3. Option (C) Its judgements have no binding force: This is incorrect. Article 94 of the UN Charter and Article 59 of the ICJ Statute make ICJ judgments binding on the parties to the specific dispute; non-compliance can even be referred to the Security Council. The judgments are not merely advisory or non-binding.
4. Option (D) Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute: This correctly captures the real distinction. Unlike the Supreme Court of India, which has compulsory jurisdiction over all persons and matters within India under the Constitution, the ICJ can only hear a case if the states involved have consented to its jurisdiction, and its binding judgment applies only to the parties before it in that dispute, under Article 59 of the ICJ Statute, rather than operating as binding precedent generally.

The true point of contrast is consent-based, party-limited jurisdiction for the ICJ versus the Supreme Court's compulsory, general jurisdiction within India.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (D): Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute.